Review of David J. Rudolph's A Jew to the Jews

The chameleon is the quintessential image for a
constantly changing individual. Proteus was an early sea-god who would change
his shape in order to avoid capture. These images resonate with aspects of the
scholarly consensus with regard to Paul’s claim that he became ‘all things to
all people’. He remained Torah-observant among Jews but not among the non-Jews.
Since the New Testament does not explicitly describe Paul engaging in such diverse
practices, scholars fill in the gaps in the textual record with claims that
Paul was just such a protean figure, one whose behaviors would change
depending on his context. This raises an important interpretive question: is
this a valid understanding of Paul and his mission practice among non-Jews? Was
Paul a chameleon?

In A Jew
to the Jews, David J. Rudolph sets out to problematize the consensus view
with regard to Paul’s lack of continued Torah-observance in his gentile
mission. He sets out two parallel research paths for himself: (1) to show that 1
Cor 9.19-23 may not be irrefutable evidence for Paul’s lack of continued
Torah-observance; and (2) to provide a constructive reading of this passage
that results in understanding Paul as one who continued to be Torah-observant
in his mission. This monograph is a revision of Rudolph’s 2007 Cambridge
University Ph.D. thesis, which was supervised by Markus Bockmuehl. Revised
theses often only account for subsequent scholarship at a minimal level;
however, Rudolph’s revisions, when compared to the 2007 thesis version, are
substantial and result in a thoroughly up-to-date work that engages scholarship
as late as 2010, making this work that much more significant, and a good model
for recent Ph.D. graduates who might be tempted not to make important revisions
to their work before publication.

Chapter 1 introduces Rudolph’s argument by
providing an overview of the case for the traditional reading of 1 Cor 9.19-23.
He surveys contemporary scholarship with regard to the intertextual,
contextual, and textual arguments that are marshalled in defence of the
consensus interpretation. He then points out four areas in which the
traditional view reflects interpretive inadequacies with regard to Paul’s
context: (1) the practical impossibility of being ‘all things to all people’;
(2) the presentation of Jews as ‘simpletons’; (3) the lack of evidence that
Paul employed this strategy; and (4) the dismissal of both the Pauline and
Lukan texts that present Paul as one who continues to be Torah observant
(12-13). This final factor is central to Rudolph’s argument. Next, he briefly
notes three other scholars who have read Paul in ways similar to himself: Peter
Tomson, Mark Nanos, and Mark Kinzer. Rudolph establishes differences between
his approach and theirs and suggests there is sufficient warrant for a
reassessment of the scholarly framework with regard to whether 1 Cor 9.19-23 ‘precludes
a Torah-observant Paul’ (17). This last phrase is an important qualifier in
that Rudolph is not trying to prove that Paul remained Torah-observant; rather,
his goal is to point out that scholars overstate their claim when they read 1
Cor 9.19-23 as indisputable evidence that Paul ceased to be Torah observant.
The rest of the monograph addresses the intertextual, contextual, and textual
arguments alluded to earlier in the introduction, and then it concludes with a
proposed interpretation of 1 Cor 9.19-23 that fulfils Rudolph’s secondary goal
of providing a reading of this passage that could allow for it to be understood
‘as the discourse of a Torah-observant Jew’ (18).

Chapter 2 surveys the key scriptural texts that
are alluded to in the broader debate over the salience of Paul’s Jewish
identity. The first part of the chapter addresses whether Paul’s Jewishness is
inconsequential now that he is in Christ. Rudolph argues that Timothy’s
circumcision, referenced in Acts 16.3, and the controverted phrase dia tous Ioudaious addresses timing
issues and not circumcision itself. Next he addresses the putative erasure
discourse in Paul’s writings and provides a series of convincing non-erasure
readings for the following: (1) ‘circumcision is nothing’ (1 Cor 7.19; Gal 5.6;
6.15); (2) ‘no longer Jew or Greek’ (Gal 3.28); (3) third entity language (1
Cor 10.32); (4) ‘weak in faith’ discourse (Rom 14); (5) ‘former way of life’
and ‘rubbish’ language (Gal 1.13; Phil 3.8); and (6) ‘live like a gentile and
not like a Jew’ discourse (Gal 2.14). Rudolph concludes that these verses do
not indicate that Paul no longer considered himself a Jew; rather, he
understood his Jewish identity as an ongoing calling in Christ. The second half
of this chapter provides a constructive reading of Acts 21.17-26; Gal 5.3; Rom
2.25, 4.11-12, 16, 11.29, and 1 Cor 7.17-24 to suggest that Paul remained a
Torah-observant Jew (89). Based on chapter 2, though the dominant segment of
New Testament scholars would suggest otherwise, the label ‘Paul the Chameleon’
would be entirely inappropriate for the apostle, and Rudolph’s arguments are
quite persuasive in this regard, especially his reading of Romans 14, 1 Cor 7.17-24.
Those who seek to continue to view Paul as one whose Jewishness ceases to be
significant will have to engage Rudolph’s arguments for those two passages.

Chapter 3 focuses more properly on the text of
1 Corinthians. Rudolph provides a contextual analysis of 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 that
establishes Paul’s instruction concerning food offered to idols and the way
these chapters may be understood as not
being the teaching of one who has broken the boundaries of pluriform Second Temple
Judaism. Rudolph addresses four issues that New Testament scholars have focused
on with regard to this section: (1) the compositional unity of the passage; (2)
the presence of the strong and the weak in the passage; (3) the situational
permission with regard to eating idol food; and (4) the relationship of Paul’s
teaching here with the apostolic decree in Acts 15. The most important findings
are that, although Christ-followers were not permitted to eat idol food in
cultic contexts, indeterminate food was
permitted outside those contexts. However, idol food was still not permitted
once it was known to be such, even outside the cultic context. So, Paul’s
localized, contextualized teaching here is quite in line with the
non-situational apostolic decree (101). This teaching, argues Rudolph, was
quite Jewish in its orientation. He provides several reasons for his claim, the
most substantial being the use of skandalizō
two times in 1 Cor 8.13, a term that connects Paul’s teaching with Lev 19.14,
thus placing Paul’s discourse within proper ‘Jewish ethical categories of
thought and legal traditions surrounding Leviticus 19’ (104). So, rather than
seeing Paul in 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 as one arguing in a non-Jewish fashion, he may be
seen as one applying the principles of Jewish teaching and learning discourse
in a flexible manner for gentiles in Christ. Rudolph concludes his contextual
discussion by briefly noting the function of 1 Cor 9 within the literary unit
of 1 Cor 8.1-11.1. He rightly sets aside the idea that Paul was defending his
apostleship here; rather, ‘the central point of 1 Cor 9 is Paul’s renunciation
of all rights (even those rights provided by Mosaic law and the Lord Jesus’
command) for the sake of the gospel’ (107-8).

Chapter 4 focuses in on the textual issues in 1
Cor 9.19-23. Rudolph begins by addressing possible contextual frameworks for
Paul’s accommodation discourse. He concludes that there are no explicit
references to Greco-Roman philosophical traditions nor any allusions convincing
enough to accept the claim that Paul is working within an accepted
accommodation topoi. Rudolph then
surveys Second Temple texts to see if they provide insight into the adaptation
language evident in Paul’s teaching. He concludes that there is evidence for
similarities with regard ‘to the mindset of a first-century Jewish guest who
seeks to please his host in everything’ (147). Next Rudolph considers whether
the gospel traditions provide a proper framework for understanding Paul’s
adaptation principle. He affirms Kim’s (2003) overall approach to the presence
of an imitatio Christi discourse in 1
Cor 9.19-23, though he rightly sets aside Kim’s rather explicit supersessionist
understanding of Mark 7.19b. This will be an important part of Rudolph positive
reading in chapter 5, a reading that places Rudolph firmly in the
post-supersessionist approach to New Testament interpretation. Finally, he
concludes chapter 4 with detailed discussions of the semantic variations of the
language in 1 Cor 9.19-23. Rudolph’s conclusions here form the basis of his
reading that Paul may be understood in these verses to be a Torah-observant
Jew. As Part I of A Jew to the Jews
comes to a close, it is now clear that Rudolph does not think that Paul was a
chameleon in any sense of the word. He was one who, it could be argued,
maintained Torah observance not as
missional adaptation, rather as a valid expression of covenant fidelity to the
God of Israel.

Chapter 5 provides Rudolph’s understanding of
Paul as a Jew who continued to faithfully observe Torah throughout his mission
among the nations by ‘imitating Christ’s accommodation and open
table-fellowship’ (173). He views the flexibility evident in 1 Cor 9.19-23 as
an expression of Paul’s belief that his Jewishness is a calling that continues
in Christ, and that this passage can be understood ‘as the discourse of a Jew
who remained within the bounds of pluriform Second Temple Judaism’ (173). He
reads 1 Cor 9.19-23 as an expression of Paul’s imitation of Jesus’ interchange
and accommodation-oriented table-fellowship with all. Rudolph argues that Paul
was aware of Jesus’ rule of adaptation evident in the words ‘eat what is set
before you’ (Luke 10.7-8). This rule originally focused primarily on ‘clean
food of doubtful or defiled status’, but Paul expands it to apply to the
questions relating to idol-food in Corinth (190).

Rudolph frames Paul’s statement ‘all things to
all people’, not as a claim that Paul ceased to be Torah-observant, rather as
an example of the way he applied Jesus’ adaptability rule, Jesus who likewise
remained Torah-observant (Mark 5.17-20). Rudolph summarizes his view: ‘As Jesus
became all things to all people through eating with ordinary Jews, Pharisees
and sinners, Paul became “all things to all people” through eating with
ordinary Jews, strict Jews (those “under the law”) and Gentile sinners’ (190).
Paul’s halakhah with regard to commensality was flexible, and he adjusted it,
as a bi-cultural mediator, based on his context (1 Cor 10.25-30).

Concerning the continued relevance of Paul’s
Jewish identity, Rudolph understands Paul to be one who argued for the
continuation of Jewish identity within the Christ-movement. He builds his case
on 1 Cor 7.17-24, which teaches that Jews ‘in Christ’ should continue Torah
observance as a vital expression of their calling from God. With regard to the
claim that Jewish identity and Torah observance were inconsequential to Paul
since the coming of Christ, Rudolph thinks that Paul kept his ‘rule in all the
churches’ as one who ‘was “not without the law of God” (1 Cor 9.21)’ (212).
Rudolph’s study is masterful, an argumentative tour de force that requires serious engagement by those contending that
Jewish identity is no longer relevant for Jews ‘in Christ’. It will most likely
be looked at as a seminal work among New Testament scholars engaged in
post-supersessionist interpretation.

While it is clear that Paul should not be
labelled a chameleon, and in this Rudolph’s study remains quite convincing, it
is still hard to determine if it is possible to avoid the charges of hypocrisy
that would be levelled against Paul for even these adaptable practices.
Rudolph’s study rightly focuses on the behaviours evident in the text, but Paul
may also be continuing his discussion of the way previous identities are
transformed ‘in Christ’. Thus, I would suggest that 1 Cor 9.20-21 may evidence
Paul’s principle of social identity adaptation. This is only a slight
adjustment to Rudolph, taking into consideration the claims of duplicity
mentioned by Nanos (2009) but still follows Rudolph and Tomson (1990) in seeing
1 Cor 9.20-21 as evidence of a relaxed halakhah with regard to the idolatrous
intentions of the gentiles. Thus, this passage connects with Paul’s mission
among the gentiles and his teaching concerning mission as social identification
for those in Corinth (see Tucker 2011).

If we extend the metaphor we began with, Paul
is not a chameleon who changes his color, i.e., one who picks up and sets down
his Jewish identity (even if that would have been possible) in order to take
the gospel to the nations. However, we might describe him as the ‘Chameleon Paul’
if by that we mean one who was comfortable in diverse cultural environments,
able to socially identify (but not integrate) with non-Jews as an expression of
his theologizing. His focus on the negotiation of the practicalities of life
within the Christ-movement would have been familiar to the Jews but new to
gentiles in Christ (Ehrensperger 2011: 18). This metaphor is especially apropos since chameleons really cannot
change their color in the first place; rather, they react to changing
environmental situations and thus only appear to change. Maybe it is time to
revisit scholarly misconceptions with regard to Paul’s so-called lifestyle
adaptability. Rudolph’s monograph, A Jew
to the Jews,provides a helpful
starting point for addressing a number of these long-held and deeply-engrained
views on Paul, his identity, and his mission.

References:

Ehrensperger, K. 2011. ‘All Things
are Lawful but Not All Things are Helpful—All Things are Lawful but not All
Things Build Up (1 Cor 10.23)—Identity Formation in the Space Between.’ Paper
presented at the SNTS General Meeting, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY.